Government as a business – It should be run at a loss

Posted on 18. Sep, 2013 by in Political/Social Opinion

Share on RedditShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone


I have been noticing over the past few years that there seems to be increasing talk about about the need for government to be run like a business. By and large those who want to see the government run like a business seem to be focusing on the economic side of things and the profitability (or lack thereof) of various government sectors and programs. In fact, this seems to be one of the big rallying calls behind the relatively recent Romney presidential campaign. His business experience, and successes (which are essentially stories of maximizing profitability) seemed to be the center point of his campaign at times. Further, the economic inefficiency of Washington was a fairly prominent point throughout the republican primaries as well as throughout the presidential campaign.

People are fed up with waste and perceived inefficiencies and they want a change. Many are turning to the example of the free market, capitalism, and big business for answers regarding how to do things better. This is entirely a mistake.

Part of the problem, I think, stems from this false dichotomy between Washington and The People. These are, in theory anyway, not supposed to be separate entities. The government is, after all, “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Treating government like a business puts the citizens in the position of customers rather than shareholders. Part of the problem is that while we are, in essence all shareholders in this collective we call America, we are not shareholders in the traditional business sense. In a publicly traded company you can go out and buy as many shares of that company as you can afford and doing so gives you a voice in how that company is run proportionate to the number of shares you control.

In the United States of America we are all equal shareholders. All are expected to contribute proportionately based on their means. Despite differences in what various individuals contribute everyone gets one share, no more, no less. When you start thinking about the government as a business and worrying about profit you open the door to huge problems. Some programs and services should not only sometimes not be run to make money or break even but should be expected to run at a loss.

For example, the prison system and law enforcement in general. The fact that any money is made off of these things is sickening. Prisons should cost the citizens money to run and operate. It helps keep absurd incarceration in check. The same is true with regards to asset forfeiture in the drug war, what the serious fuck. Any money recovered in this fashion should be entirely allocated towards education and healthcare.  None of it should go towards funding the departments seizing the money. The police are public servants and should only be funded 100% by tax dollars.

This is not to say that all government programs should be free nor is it to say that all government programs should be available to everyone. But to expect something like the healthcare system, in which the basic tenets of capitalism break down (“oh, your costs are too high, I will go 15 miles over to the next hospital treat my appendicitis, they are cheaper”).

The point is that there are vast areas of government expenditure in which it should be completed expected and understood that there will be zero return.  This is the point of taxes. To fund the government and the programs and services put in place by the government for  the people.


Share on RedditShare on Google+Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

6 Responses to “Government as a business – It should be run at a loss”

  1. doodle

    19. Sep, 2013

    define run at a loss that s about as whacky as it gets !!! hmm underfund schools turn out illiterates and give some other country a billion dollars while states and citys file bankruptcy. There arent enough pages for comments!!

    Keep em dum and havin fun will build another jail for slave wage work ..

    Reply to this comment
  2. Ryan

    19. Sep, 2013

    If services aren’t worth paying for, why would you pay for them?

    Why shouldn’t people compete in health care? I’ve had better health care outside of the first world than I ever got in a first world country. There was competition, and doctors served their patients first – not some regulation. It was also much cheaper. Cheaper and better? What’s not to love?

    You nicely point out the conflict of interest in the prison system and law enforcement. Check out “DROs” and Stefan Molyneux for an interesting resolution to that problem. (In the abstract though – he doesn’t offer an operational manual.)

    I’d like to point out a little humor I found in your article:

    “…zero return. This is the point of taxes.”

    Indeed. ;)

    But seriously, paying for a “zero return” just makes zero cents, err… I mean zero sense. (It’s hard to be serious when talking about some of these topics – better to laugh it off than get upset.)

    When both parents in a family have to work just to put food on the table and provide a half-way decent living for the family, in what world does it make sense to pay for things that have zero benefit to them? Wouldn’t it be better to have one parent have the option to choose to stay home and raise the kids rather than leave them to be raised by an uncaring state-funded education system and the television set?

    Anyways, just a different perspective on how to waste money. ;)

    Reply to this comment
  3. damien

    19. Sep, 2013

    The only way to get a government of/for/by the people is to follow the lead of the original Athenian democracy of Solon.

    We are taught that Athens was the home of democracy, but few of us know that the Athenian democracy was very different from ours – their representatives were selected by lottery rather than by elections, and they considered elections to be anti-democratic and subject to the corrupting influences of money and dynastic families. It was called “The radical democracy” because of its inclusiveness, and it survived for hundreds of years..

    Reply to this comment
  4. kay

    19. Sep, 2013

    Some organizations are more of a service and should only operate with a slim profit margin enough to ensure it’s continued existence nothing more

    Reply to this comment
  5. dane theisen

    18. Sep, 2013

    Awsome article. I completely agree that the Government should not be run like a business. The purpose of the Government is to serve the people, not to turn a profit off of it’s citizens (Education loans for example). I also firmly support eliminating Lobbists from our political system. Corprate money in the public political system does not create equal representation for all. It creates the opportunity for corporations to push their selfish agendas through congress with ease. Give me Liberty or at least a Government body that is not bought and paid for.

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On FacebookCheck Our Feed